3 ms·

It makes someone new to the economy have to work even harder to get a start. If there is a new gig platform and I have 0 rep, that's fine because everyone has

by lev99 9y ago

It makes someone new to the economy have to work even harder to get a start. If there is a new gig platform and I have 0 rep, that's fine because everyone has 0 rep. If there is a new gig platform and I have 0 rep, and a lot of people brought their portable reputation with them, it means I have a disadvantage. It does provide more knowledge to consumers, and it does allow people to make different choices about who works for them.

ryanianian 9y ago
I like your notion of a level playing field, but I think you're basically saying we should ignore past experience on other marketpalces because it favors people with an established track-record? Isn't someone with a proven track-record exactly the kind of person we want to favor? Gig marketplaces come and go. If you spend 5 years working dozens of jobs a week to build up thousands of positive reviews only to have the marketplace go belly-up and now you have to start at zero, how do you think the gig economy can retain actual talent that expects to get paid well for their proven track-record? Or put it another way: I personally like the option of being able to pay more for people with a long history of positive reviews. I'm willing to pay much less to hire an untrusted worker. I don't think I'm alone. If everything starts at zero every few years, then all the wages reset to baseline every few years as well. Sure let people start at zero, but also let them get paid like an untrusted worker. And sure, let people bring over their experience. But let them get paid and charge like they have that experience.
- lev99 9y ago
  Describing who benefits from properties of one policy (non-transferable reputation) is not an inherit stance in favor of that policy. Every policy has winners and losers. I just felt like on this discussion thread there was a loser (people entering the gig economy) not mentioned.
  - ryanianian 9y ago
    Good point.

by lev99 9y ago

ryanianian 9y ago

I like your notion of a level playing field, but I think you're basically saying we should ignore past experience on other marketpalces because it favors people with an established track-record? Isn't someone with a proven track-record exactly the kind of person we want to favor? Gig marketplaces come and go. If you spend 5 years working dozens of jobs a week to build up thousands of positive reviews only to have the marketplace go belly-up and now you have to start at zero, how do you think the gig economy can retain actual talent that expects to get paid well for their proven track-record? Or put it another way: I personally like the option of being able to pay more for people with a long history of positive reviews. I'm willing to pay much less to hire an untrusted worker. I don't think I'm alone. If everything starts at zero every few years, then all the wages reset to baseline every few years as well. Sure let people start at zero, but also let them get paid like an untrusted worker. And sure, let people bring over their experience. But let them get paid and charge like they have that experience.

lev99 9y ago
Describing who benefits from properties of one policy (non-transferable reputation) is not an inherit stance in favor of that policy. Every policy has winners and losers. I just felt like on this discussion thread there was a loser (people entering the gig economy) not mentioned.
- ryanianian 9y ago
  Good point.